Does allowing concealed weapons really reduce crime?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philip_P
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Philip_P

Guest
In the discussion of San Francisco’s gun ban, several posters have claimed that allowing concealed weapons actually results in less crime. A recent study says this is false. The link:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr

Perhaps most telling, although virtually all states have seen crime drop, that decline has been significantly less in states with loose concealed weapons laws.

If more guns means less crime, why are states with greater restrictions on guns seeing crime drop faster?
 
Very detailed evidential statistics. I’m looking forward to the detailed evidential statistics that the pro-carry-law folks will rebut with.

I know that here in NYC, vigorous enforcement of the laws by the police during the Giuliani era - not by armed citizen vigilantes - brought our crime down.
 
If crime is down it’s usualy because police are doing something right. I think common sense is more effective then packing a gun 24-7. If I’m in a place that I need a gun to be in, I should not be in that place to begin with.

If I was forced to live in a very bad part of city that would be a different story. For the most part guns are better left at home. The best ways to reduce violent crime is to to get drugs off the streets, reduce domestic violence, and go after gangs.

-D
 
I wonder if legally carrying a concealed firearm prevented violent crimes being done on the people that were carrying the firearms? Magic 8 ball says: “Seems likely.”
 
40.png
Darrel:
If crime is down it’s usualy because police are doing something right. I think common sense is more effective then packing a gun 24-7. If I’m in a place that I need a gun to be in, I should not be in that place to begin with.
Click to expand...
To be sure!!! There are places in Brooklyn that no ordinary person should be wandering around it at 3 a.m., e.g., with or without a gun.
The best ways to reduce violent crime is to to get drugs off the streets, reduce domestic violence, and go after gangs.
Click to expand...
IOW, vigorous police action in the streets. Yes!
 
Of course the Brady campaign attacks concealed carry laws. Planned Parenthood attacks laws that require parental notification before a minor can get an abortion, too.

I note the irony – the argument is no longer presented as “Allowing concealed weapons will **increase **crime.” That argument has been soundly refuted and is as dead as a doornail.

So they have shifted to the more slippery "Does allowing concealed weapons really reduce crime?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

The man who did the most exhaustive study on this issue, John Lott has issued irrefutable evidence they are wrong. I 'll let him speak in his own words:
To provide a more systematic answer, I published a book on gun control that analyzed FBI crime statistics for all 3,054 American counties from 1977 to 1994 as well as extensive information on accidental gun deaths and suicides. The study examined states that changed from discretionary to objective concealed-handgun laws. Thirty-one states now have these “right-to-carry” rules. The findings were dramatic. The more people who obtain permits over time, the more violent crime rates decline. After concealed handgun laws have been in effect for five years, murders declined by at least 15 percent, rapes by 9 percent and robberies by 11 percent. These are the drops over and above the recent national declines and after such things as changing arrest and conviction rates, demographics, and other gun-control laws have been accounted for. The reductions in violent crime are greatest in the most crime-prone, most urban areas. Women and blacks gained by far the most from this ability to protect themselves.
Click to expand...
You can read more of his work at tsra.com/LottPage.htm
 
vern humphrey:
Of course the Brady campaign attacks concealed carry laws. Planned Parenthood attacks laws that require parental notification before a minor can get an abortion, too.

I note the irony – the argument is no longer presented as “Allowing concealed weapons will **increase **crime.” That argument has been soundly refuted and is as dead as a doornail.

So they have shifted to the more slippery "Does allowing concealed weapons really reduce crime?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

The man who did the most exhaustive study on this issue, John Lott has issued irrefutable evidence they are wrong. I 'll let him speak in his own words:

You can read more of his work at tsra.com/LottPage.htm
Click to expand...
Attacking the messenger, never a sign of strength in debate (and of course the gun lobby has absolutely no vested interests in promoting gun sales. right?)

The gun lobby’s claim is that more guns = less crime. Crime has dropped fastest in places with the greatest gun restrictions. Whatever accounts for the national drop in crime, it’s not more guns.

Also worth noting that the Brady study is specifically in response to the flawed Lott study.
 
vern humphrey:
The man who did the most exhaustive study on this issue, John Lott has issued irrefutable evidence they are wrong.
Click to expand...
His statistics end in 1994, Brady’s are from 1992- 1998. I’ll go with the more recent work, thank you.

BTW, Lott’s evidence is “irrefutable”? Other than that the Brady site says that there are others who disagree with him, How can anyone call the research of one individual “irrefutable”?
 
Philip P:
Attacking the messenger, never a sign of strength in debate (and of course the gun lobby has absolutely no vested interests in promoting gun sales. right?)

The gun lobby’s claim is that more guns = less crime. Crime has dropped fastest in places with the greatest gun restrictions. Whatever accounts for the national drop in crime, it’s not more guns.

Also worth noting that the Brady study is specifically in response to the flawed Lott study.
Click to expand...
And note that their attacks are failures.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
Arba Sicula:
His statistics end in 1994, Brady’s are from 1992- 1998. I’ll go with the more recent work, thank you.
Click to expand...
Go to the URL I posted – Lott has continuing work right up to the minute.
Arba Sicula:
BTW, Lott’s evidence is “irrefutable”? Other than that the Brady site says that there are others who disagree with him, How can anyone call the research of one individual “irrefutable”?
Click to expand...
Neither the Brady Campaign nor anyone else has yet to refute him, have they?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

The strength of the Lott studies are that they take in the whole country (all 3054 counties) and don’t “cherry pick.” In addition to that, the data is subjected to very sophisticated multi-variate analysis. No one has yet shown that the results are due to some other, not accounted-for factor.
 
Philip P:
Crime has dropped fastest in places with the greatest gun restrictions.
Click to expand...
Really? Washington, D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the nation and they also have the highest murder rate in the country. It is almost impossible in NYC to legally get a gun, yet their violent crime rate is one of the worst in the nation.

Compare that to places like Vermont which have almost no gun laws and they are 49th in the nation when it comes to violent crime.

I would like to know how the Brady bunch is obtaining it’s numbers because what they say doesn’t stack up to what is being seen in the real world.

EDITTED TO ADD: It also doesn’t explain why Florida’s violent crime rate was above the national average but when they allowed private citizens to carry concealed forearms, the violent crime rate fell below the national average.

I suspect that there is something wrong with the way the Brady Bunch did their research.
 
Sir Knight:
Really? Washington, D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the nation and they also have the highest murder rate in the country. It is almost impossible in NYC to legally get a gun, yet their violent crime rate is one of the worst in the nation.

Compare that to places like Vermont which have almost no gun laws and they are 49th in the nation when it comes to violent crime.

I would like to know how the Brady bunch is obtaining it’s numbers because what they say doesn’t stack up to what is being seen in the real world.
Click to expand...
The Brady bunch has a representative at the Infantry School, at Fort Benning, Georgia, attending Jump School. He finds the numbers in his Fourth Point of Contact.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
 
Sir Knight:
Really? Washington, D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the nation and they also have the highest murder rate in the country.
Click to expand...
Not so. New Orleans was worst. Washington has a lesser murder rate with lower percentages than some other cities.
It is almost impossible in NYC to legally get a gun, yet their violent crime rate is one of the worst in the nation.
Click to expand...
False. Even Vern Humphrey’s capital city of Little Rock (where guns can be carried concealed or otherwise) has a higher murder, rape, and assault rape than does New York City where legal carry weapons are almost non-existent…
Compare that to places like Vermont which have almost no gun laws and they are 49th in the nation when it comes to violent crime.
Click to expand...
And Vermont is so sleepy rural that violent crime is pointless.
I would like to know how the Brady bunch is obtaining it’s numbers because what they say doesn’t stack up to what is being seen in the real world.
Click to expand...
You are citing the “real world” and your statistics are in error. Where are you obtaining your numbers?
 
Sir Knight:
Really? Washington, D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the nation and they also have the highest murder rate in the country. It is almost impossible in NYC to legally get a gun, yet their violent crime rate is one of the worst in the nation.

Compare that to places like Vermont which have almost no gun laws and they are 49th in the nation when it comes to violent crime.

I would like to know how the Brady bunch is obtaining it’s numbers because what they say doesn’t stack up to what is being seen in the real world.
Click to expand...
Vermont verses NYC and DC? Thats like compairing Down town Falusia to a country town in Iowa. The very bad cities in the Untied States are like third world countries in slums and drug infested areas. Do people actualy think these people care if the people are armed? Dope dealers and thugs are toting AK-47’s in the trunk.

Show me some stats on the number of shots fired between rival gangs. Lets look at the percentage of violent crimes that can be prevented by the average Joe whipping out a 44 magnum. If we want to eliminate violent crime we need to end poverty, drugs, gangs, and domestic violence. The answer will never rest in some need to arm all of the good people out there. I dont think the hells angels or the crips and bloods are to worried about grandpa and his glock. It’s like a bandaid for a broken leg.

-D
 
Arba Sicula:
You are citing the “real world” and your statistics are in error. Where are you obtaining your numbers?
Click to expand...
I’ll take their word over that of the Brady Bunch any day of the week.
 
I don’t know about your states, but in Oregon about all you need for a concealed weapons permit is a felony-free record and a pulse. It makes one wonder why they bother to ban concealed weapons at all. Maybe it makes it easier to catch crooks who are bad at filing paperwork?

At the very least, people with concealed weapons shouldn’t be able to carry them when they’ve been drinking. For crying out loud, if you can’t operate an Impala when you’ve put down a few, what business would you have hanging out in a bar with a loaded gun?

“Carrying heat under the influence” ought to be grounds for pulling your permit.
 
Just a note about the so-called “vested interests” argument. There seems to be this condition that makes people think that pointing out anyone with a monetary interest somehow means that their opponent’s are completely disinterested fighters for the common good. Not necessarily. We all get paid. Many want money for their efforts, but many also want political power. The greed is the same, only the coin in which they trade is different.

Scott
 
40.png
BLB_Oregon:
I don’t know about your states, but in Oregon about all you need for a concealed weapons permit is a felony-free record and a pulse. It makes one wonder why they bother to ban concealed weapons at all. Maybe it makes it easier to catch crooks who are bad at filing paperwork?

At the very least, people with concealed weapons shouldn’t be able to carry them when they’ve been drinking. For crying out loud, if you can’t operate an Impala when you’ve put down a few, what business would you have hanging out in a bar with a loaded gun?

“Carrying heat under the influence” ought to be grounds for pulling your permit.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100% – carrying a weapon under the influence ought to be regarded as seriously as driving under the infuence.

On the other hand, it cannot be shown that there is a serious problem with peopel carrying under the influence (driving under the influence is many orders of magnitude more harmful.)

My position is you carry a gun because you might need it. And when you need it, you don’t want your reflexes slowed by alcohol.
 
Philip P:
Crime has dropped fastest in places with the greatest gun restrictions.
Click to expand...
Washington DC has the strictest gun laws in the Nation. Violence down there? Ummmm no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top